Huynh v. Riveria, et al

Filing 89

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/6/2011: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider 87 is denied and the notice of motion date of 5/11/2011 is stricken with no appearances being necessary on that date. (For further details see Written Opinion.) Mailed notice. (psm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

10 C 194

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/6/2011

Huynh vs. Riviera

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider [87] is denied and the notice of motion date of
5/11/2011 is stricken with no appearances being necessary on that date.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
The Court dismissed this lawsuit on January 31, 2011 and allowed Plaintiff 30 days in which to file an
amended complaint ([70] at 19). Plaintiff declined to file an amended complaint; instead, Plaintiff filed a
“motion to sanction,” [77] which accused the Court and the attorneys opposing her of fraud and corruption
and asked the Court to sanction her opponents. On March 10, 2011, the Court denied that motion and entered
judgment dismissing the case with prejudice [80; 82]. On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff moved to vacate the
Court’s January 31, 2011 order, which was in essence a motion for reconsideration [83]. In that motion,
Plaintiff raised no arguments regarding why the Court’s dismissal of her lawsuit was incorrect, and again
accused the Court and the attorneys opposing her of fraud and corruption. The Court denied the motion to
vacate [85].
Plaintiff has filed yet another motion, this one styled a “motion to reconsider [the denial of] her motion to
vacate” [87]. Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence or an intervening change of law. Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729,
732 (7th Cir. 1998). Rule 60(b) allows a court to reconsider a final judgment on the grounds of mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence, fraud, void judgments, judgments
satisfied, or “any other reason justifying relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Under this rule, relief is “an
extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230
F.3d 319, 327 (7th Cir. 2000). Reconsideration is appropriate only when the facts or law on which the
decision was based have changed or “the Court has patently misunderstood a party or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties or has made a an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension.” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990).
A motion for reconsideration should not be used as an opportunity for parties to rehash old arguments or raise
new arguments that could have previously been offered. Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus.,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996).
10C194 Huynh vs. Riviera

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
Here, Plaintiff does not even cite the applicable legal standard, much less attempt to meet it. Instead, like her
previous filings, Plaintiff’s most recent motion only casts aspersions on the Court, asking it to “reclaim its
honor” and correct its “unethical” conduct. In fact, many of the documents attached to the motion have
nothing to do with the claims asserted in this case. Instead, they reference, among other things, three prior
cases in this jurisdiction that Plaintiff brought in 2001, 2007, and 2009, as well as a tax court matter.
Plaintiff’s motion [87] is denied.

10C194 Huynh vs. Riviera

Page 2 of 2